Paul Russell: ‘The stench from both houses of Parliament is beginning to overwhelm’

‘The stench from both houses of Parliament is beginning to overwhelm’

Readers’ complaints about various levels of government are nothing new. But this week, both houses in our federal parliamentary system came under sustained attack from letter writers, after daily reports of waste and extravagance involving members of those chambers.
The majority of the angry letters focused on the Senate and the free-spending members therein.

“Pamela Wallin reportedly spent an average of $13,000 per month for travel expenses, or an average of almost $500 a day,” wrote Sebastian Grunstra. “Methinks the time has come to hand Senator Wallin a walking stick and an OC Transpo bus pass. And bill her for it later. Oh, the nerve and the gall and the arrogance.”

“I must admit that I am appalled at the scandal that is now coming to the forefront on Canada’s unnecessary Senate and the sense of entitlement that senators hold,” wrote Robert S. Sowka. “At a cost of $400-million to hardworking Canadian taxpayers, what value do they serve? Imagine what good we could achieve by properly using this money to make Canada a better place to live. Abolish the Senate and let these unelected representatives find a real job.”

“If the Senate was full of elder statesmen and accomplished Canadians, it might be a serious chamber of sombre second thought and the brake on an overreaching government, as it was supposed to be,” wrote David Neal. “But it has always been a home for failed candidates and party bagmen — a reward for the faithful, regardless of their ability to actually do the job that’s needed from a Senate.”

“From the way senators are ‘created’ to the way they are behaving, they are embarrassment, a useless appendage and Canada’s shame,” added Gražina Petrauskas. “Compare our Senate to the U.S. Senate — the contrast is like night and day. If Canada truly needs a senate, let’s have an elected Senate. No more political pork-barreling appointments.”

A few readers did defend the idea of having a Senate, with most offering suggestions on how the upper house could be improved. (Watch for a full page of these ideas on Monday’s Letters page). Here is one defence of having a Senate:

“There is no doubt that the Senate works,” wrote Jack Van Kessel. “Having ‘sober second thought’ built into our political system only makes sense. The real challenge is ensuring that the people who inhabit it are able to individually and collectively provide the sober second thought required. Appointing those with little accomplishment or shady backgrounds, or just plain political friends, only serves to make the Senate laughable in the eyes of Canadians.”

— Our Prime Minister’s failure to reform the Senate earned him the wrath of this reader.

“Should we abolish the Senate?,” asked S. Kelly. “Hell yes! But don’t expect Stephen Harper to be the one who does it, as he has appointed so many senators himself.”
The PM was also taken to task for defending “deceptive” robocalls in Saskatchewan, arguing that his party “followed the rules and the law in this situation.”

“Once again, the Conservatives are caught up in a scandal, this time for attempted gerrymandering,” wrote Amanda Kavanagh. “The assault on our democratic system is subversive and deliberate. We must seriously question the direction Stephen Harper is taking our country. Do we really want a PM who dictates and weakens the integrity of our parliamentary democracy? It is imperative that Canadians take part in politics to save our traditional institutions from further dismantling.”

One reader even pinned the demise of the penny on our PM.

“The Conservative government has graciously provided the opposition with the perfect attack ad for the next election,” wrote Ezra Franken. “The opposition can now say: ‘Stephen Harper has left Canadians penniless.’ Anyway, that’s my two cents worth.”

— A certain Liberal MP with a famous last name was again the focus of many letters this week.

“Apparently federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson doesn’t believe an MP such as Justin Trudeau, who collects $277,000 for giving canned speeches, ‘act(s) in any way to further his private interests as a paid speaker when performing those duties and functions,’ ” wrote Ron Freedman. “Since when is $227,000 in one’s pocket not a private interest? The stench from both houses of Parliament is beginning to overwhelm.”

“So, Justin Trudeau thinks the public is becoming more and more cynical about politics,” added Hank Bangild. “That can’t possibly come as a big surprise, with him as a Liberal leadership candidate and the collective snout of senators and other politicians in the trough. But then again, he’s so removed from the real world — just like his father.”

“Points to Justin Trudeau for consistency at least,” added Marty Burke. “Before becoming an MP, whilst an MP, and of course now during his teenage-rage-themed Liberal leadership campaign, he repeatedly displays the work habits of a zombie, lurching from one minor gathering to another with only one thought in mind — personal sustenance. Sadly for the walking dead Liberals, what père Trudeau started the son will finish: The destruction of the Liberal party.”

“This has been a great week for Liberal leadership hopeful Justin Trudeau,” countered Michael Sweet. “First, some real common sense about the Senate, about increasing the calibre of our Senate appointees. Then came his financial statements. How many politicians have you seen show their bank statements openly and voluntarily? Justin Trudeau is not only ready to talk the talk, but also walk the walk. Next stop, 24 Sussex.”